Re: Additional WG chair and the WG future

I understand why you are reluctant for the working group to take on new
work.  However, we need to make sure that existing work is properly dealt
with, including current items that do not have milestones.  Of particular
note in that regard is the completion of rfc5661bis (has no milestone but
the working group is pretty much committed to complete this as well as the
needed security enhancements to support it).  Given that there are a number
of errata (justifiably) REJECTED, assuming that the necessary changes would
be effected in rfc5661bis, I think the working group has to consider this
task as existing work notwithstanding the fact that there is not yet any
milestone for it.


I don't think we will be in a position to provide related milestones until
the IESG considerstion of rfc5661sesqui-msns is much farther along.

On Fri, Oct 25, 2019, 3:39 AM Magnus Westerlund <magnus.westerlund=
[email protected]> wrote:

> NFSv4 WG,
>
> I am well aware of the frustration over the lack of progress in the WG.
> One of
> the issues has been lack of WG chair activities in progressing and
> managing the
> work items. As a first step to address that I want to recruit an
> additional WG
> chair for the WG. Although that is not the only issue, it is one that will
> have
> to be addressed directly.
>
> Anyone interested in becoming a WG chair please contact me. I will not
> make a
> decision within the next two weeks to allow people some time to seek
> support in
> their organizations if they are considering taking on the role. I will
> solicit
> persons outside of the WG also, as I feel it is more important that we get
> someone that has time to devote to run to processes, than necessary deep
> technical knowledge of NFS. That the other chairs and the WG participants
> can
> provide.
>
> Secondly, considering that the WG have a very small number of active
> participants, and beyond these few there appears to be little energy. I am
> deeply worried about the breadth of review this work gets. I think it is
> important the WG focus on the most important work to finish up. And I
> seriously
> think we need to consider if the right action is to close the WG, soon but
> in a
> controlled fashion. Other WGs have done this in the past. The IETF has
> procedures for maintenance and handling errata for existing specifications
> beyond the WG active life.
>
> So this is a heads up to the WG, that several things will have to improve
> in the
> WG if it is to go one any longer time. I know that in Montreal there
> discussion
> of new work. But, as the situation stands I am extremely hesitant to add
> any new
> milestones. Instead we need to show that the work currently taken on is
> dealt
> with. If the WG wants to reprioritize existing work that can also improve
> the
> situation.
>
> - Successful recruitment of a WG chair.
> - Identification of what work is crucial to complete.
> - Good progress on the main items with both active editors and reviewers.
>
> If the above is shown in the next 6 months and there are still work the WG
> is
> interested in then we can discuss adding new work.
>
> This is my view of the situation, and that is fairly dire. If WG
> participants
> thinks the issues the WG faces can be addressed, I will listen to you. But
> improvements need to be shown.
>
> Regards
>
> Magnus Westerlund
> TSV AD
>
> _______________________________________________
> nfsv4 mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nfsv4
>

_______________________________________________
nfsv4 mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nfsv4